Hi Thomas,,Bryan i found that RFC 3630 mentions point-to-point and multi-access links only:
" 2.1. LSA type This extension makes use of the Opaque LSA [3]. Three types of Opaque LSAs exist, each of which has a different flooding scope. This proposal uses only Type 10 LSAs, which have an area flooding scope. One new LSA is defined, the Traffic Engineering LSA. This LSA describes routers, point-to-point links, and connections to multi- access networks (similar to a Router LSA). For traffic engineering purposes, the existing Network LSA is sufficient for describing multi-access links, so no additional LSA is defined for this purpose. " On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Thomas J. Loran <[email protected]> wrote: > Jose, > > > > I can confirm that I have seen this exact scenario doing a another vendor’s > workbooks. I do not know the technical reason though… > > > > Thomas Loran > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Jose Zamora > *Sent:* Monday, December 21, 2009 10:23 AM > *To:* Bryan Bartik > *Cc:* ccie_sp > *Subject:* Re: [OSL | CCIE_SP] MPLS TE in point-to-multipoint ospf > networks > > > > Hi Bryan > > > > i have OSPF adjacencies established, all the links are in area 0. > > > > The routers that are having the problem are directly connected and has a > /29 subnet between them, like i told you before if i change the network > type to point-to-multipoint the tunnel didnt comes up,, but if i left the > network type as broadcast. it works fine. > > > > If i do "show mpls traffic link-manag igp-nei " i saw the routers like > neigbors. > > > > I read in a old post of another forum that RSVP doesnt work fine with > point-to-multipoint networks. But i cant find any link that confirm this. > > > > > On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Bryan Bartik <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Jose, > > Looks like the relevant log message is "Next ERO subobject 131.1.23.2 is > strict but not adjacent" which is somewhat self-explanatory if it is > correct. Explain your topology and addressing then maybe we can give more > insight. > > On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 8:51 AM, Jose Zamora <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi guys,, i was testing some MPLS TE scenarios, in one of my links i > had a ethernet link like point-to-multipoint. > > > > In this case the tunnel didnt come up,, > > > > the debug outputs are the following > > > > or updating received ERO (error code 2) > R6# > *Dec 20 07:17:39.723: RSVP 131.6.6.6_127->131.4.4.4_10[131.6.6.6]: Received > Path message from 131.6.6.6 (on sender host) > *Dec 20 07:17:39.727: RSVP: new path message passed parsing, continue... > *Dec 20 07:17:39.727: RSVP: Next ERO subobject 131.1.23.2 is strict but not > adjacent > *Dec 20 07:17:39.727: RSVP 131.6.6.6_127->131.4.4.4_10[131.6.6.6]: PATH: > Error updating received ERO (error code 2) > R6# > > > > if i changed the network type to brodacast the tunnel comes up . > > > > > > Regards. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please > visit www.ipexpert.com > > > > > -- > Bryan Bartik > CCIE #23707 (R&S, SP), CCNP > Sr. Support Engineer - IPexpert, Inc. > URL: http://www.IPexpert.com <http://www.ipexpert.com/> > > > > > -- > Atentamente Jose Zamora Prado > Telefono 8252885 > -- Atentamente Jose Zamora Prado Telefono 8252885
_______________________________________________ For more information regarding industry leading CCIE Lab training, please visit www.ipexpert.com
